Per pixel vs. Microvertex

[GeeJay]

Hi,

the manual states:

"The only disadvantage in comparison to microvertex painting

is that per-pixel painting does not support vector displacement,

only normal displacement."

but for me it is the total opposite. Per pixel painting is slower, leaves artifacts and when I show the displaced surface it looks much worse than with microvertex painting. The advantages listed in the manual sound nice so, is there something wrong on my end or is microvertex painting really the better choice? What is your experience? I should add that I don't work with game content, only offline rendering.

Cheers,

George

[Monsoon]

I have the same issues. Cavity painting is also very poor in per pixel mode if it works at all. I have had no luck with per pixel and always revert back to microvertex for my painting needs. It's not my machine or something I'm not doing either. I just cannot get the same satisfactory results.

[philnolan3d]

Per-pixel and microvertex do different things, it doesn't really make sense to compare them as if they served the same purpose. PP would be better for painting a low poly game model while MV would be better for a high quality feature film model.

[GeeJay]

Thanks for the replies. So I am not alone with my observations. From the manual I got the impression that per pixel is superior to microvertex in every way, except if you need vector displacement. In fact, it makes it sound like that this is the only reason microvertex is still there! That made me a bit nervous, in my opinion 3dcoat would loose a lot of functionality if this mode was dropped...